“More Police” may look like a sign of success: their presence may indeed locally and transiently resist the rise in figures for acts of bad-ness. But their existence is an effect of failure, and not success. People should think more, and so they ought to read more books – and I did NOT mean winners of the “Booker Prize” books.

There ought also to be a way for the Free Market to discover how there might be lots and lots of money to be made for James R Murdoch, by having less Wireless Tele Vision. Or preferably none at all for a few years.

Oh, and we could restock “Libraries” with a couple more books each, by having strong thugs on the premises who could lift wheelchairs full of the Disabled up to a height of about 8 or 9 feet.

2 responses to “I would like to see…”

I guess the libertarian approach is to stop messing around with people. If one was subject to less stupidity, and coercive official stupidity one would be less frustrated and enraged and just do things better. I have always found the Spanish to be essentially helpful, cooperative, cordial and well tempered drivers. However as more and more EU style rules and regs, from speedlimit enforcement, alcohol limit enforcement, wearing of crash helmets/seat belts have become enforced the tempers have flared and good will has subsided. Yes, less police and more good will is what is needed. The brash baleful and desperately yobbism that has seized the throat of Britain seems to me to be no coincidence.
More nannies = more babies. Adult babies who canÞtÞÞsoil their nappies so they bash your head in.

The problem I sort of have with IDS’s whole thing is that it’s just more of the constant moral panic about the residuum, which was what sparked off the whole socialist disaster in Britain, or a large part of it anyway. 150 years later, we’re still basically in the same position, which is that most of the lower orders are basically decent people and some of them are completely off the rails, and none of the combinations of sticks and carrots so far applied appears to have improved (nor I suspect worsened) the problem as defined. Everyone seems to think that at some point the problem wasn’t there or wasn’t as bad, but reading through histories one finds the same sorts of people talking about the same sort of problem as far back at least as the start of the industrial revolution, and probably further, except nobody cared very much back in the distant past. Every now and again one of these bad lot families is going to do something utterly frightful, and then we go round the mulberry bush again with “solutions” that later on appear not to have worked. Picking a “solution” at random, Beveridge assured the Cambridge Eugenics Society that because people have more babies when they are poor, giving them family allowance would stop the untermenschen breeding.

That didn’t work did it?

So I dunno, I really am doubtful that anybody’s plan is going to achieve anything, and IDS’s demands for yet more state intervention is likely on past form to just subject ordinary families to more state poking around, while not affecting the problem a single jot. I’m sure he’s a good man. But most of the anglo-socialists have been good people in some regard, trying to help. All they’ve actually achieved is a monstrous overbearing state. The problem they started out trying to fix in Victoran times is still with us, if we are to believe The Daily Mail.

I know of one “poor area” plagued by a hooligan family, in which the locals accidentally had car accidents at both ends of the street to block the emergency services, and there was a nasty accidental fire in the hooligan house that killed two of them and caused the rest to move away, which seems to have been one solution to such a problem. Which I do not of course support.